0% house edge, rake and comission

[actmyname]

But let's assume 10% of the players do get greedy and try to win back everything and fail, then that means the casino will be in profits from those 10%. Of course we can assume as well that there would be players the profit from the casino, but theoretically it would still be hard to defeat the casino with the limits in place.

Then, in this case, you are assuming that the variance is in the casino's favor. Expected value changes not based on the bet limits, nor the strategy. You are assuming that the casino has profited off players to prove that the casino is profitable. That is begging the question and is invalid.

Expected value is absolute.

[1715119146]

1715119146

[1715119146]

1715119146

[1715119146]

1715119146

[LuanX3]

But let's assume 10% of the players do get greedy and try to win back everything and fail, then that means the casino will be in profits from those 10%. Of course we can assume as well that there would be players the profit from the casino, but theoretically it would still be hard to defeat the casino with the limits in place.

Then, in this case, you are assuming that the variance is in the casino's favor. Expected value changes not based on the bet limits, nor the strategy. You are assuming that the casino has profited off players to prove that the casino is profitable. That is begging the question and is invalid.

Expected value is absolute.

Mathematically it is absolute and in a perfect scenario it will happen. But the fact is that it does not put into equation human emotions and other factors that greatly will change the outcome of the bets in the whole scenario. Indeed that 0% house edge will not be as profitable as the ones with house edge, but I am just disputing the argument that there is still a chance these kinds of casinos can exist and make a profit.

[actmyname]

there is still a chance these kinds of casinos can exist and make a profit.

I'm not denying that they can make a profit. Just that they are not profitable. There's a difference between winning at gambling and having a gambling game be winning for the player.

There is no argument to be had here since you're simply saying that casinos can get 'lucky' to deviate from the mean and make some profit. Again, begging the question.Human emotions/other factors don't change the outcome of the wager. If the edge is 0%, the ev for both the casino and player are 1.00. That's it.

[Casino_Guide]

In general, it sounds too good to be true. What is the business idea it the house edge is zero? Even if you don't pay any fees to them (how do they make money?)
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered before you could go into a project like that...

[Black_bl]

Hey players,
I was looking for opportunity between casinos and found two crypto project which claim that have 0% fees on games, named zeroedge and edgeless. Do you have any experience with them? I asked in their telegram groups, how their concept works, they answered me that their concept is based on their own cryptocurrency, that will grow with number of players and also that not every game will be with 0% fees. I still don't know if it's enough, maybe blockchain will spare some money, on the other hand, they should have big reserve to be able to run. What do you think, will these project successful?

There is no need to experiment such projects.

Let's be clear a casino is made to make money. No one creates a casino just for the fun.
So if they "claim" they have 0% fee, means 0% house edge... How do they earn money?
Of course tons of casinos sporadically drop their house edge to 0 for like 1 hour just to bring more players, but that's like the faucets it's just a marketing operation.

If a project claims to have 0% house edge you can be sure that they'll either run with your money or simply cheat on the house edge xD

I'm not sure friend if there isn't a need. From the beginning, people in crypto try to achieve widespread adoption. I personally think that this could be the right way, almost everyone from us bet in lotteries, is has involved in poker or sports betting and gambling. If you provide people a way how they can using crypto in simplified way, there will use it if they think that this approach will have advantage them (spare money). There a few projects dealing with zero transaction fees, these projects based on DAG have a problem with centralization their nodes in early stage, this could be solution for them, how obtain enough people to their ecosystem.
How do they earn money?
1) advertisement as we mentioned in this thread
2) casino will own tokens, they future earnings will flow from their tokens (bankroll can be created initial capital or venture capital or ICO)
3) you definitely don't have to have ALL games with 0% house edge, commissions, rakes
There could be plenty settings how set this system to be profitable

[veleten]

We can even see negative house edge websites !
These are the faucet. I'm thinking in particular of http://www.freebitco.in

Their business model relies on advertising, so the games are just giving BTC away.
It's very hard to get some decent amount of money. You can win more on a dice site.

If some organization find a right balance between income, profits and expenses, we can have very interesting free games.

oh that is one bad example for a negative house edge
freebitcoin is a faucet+gambling site,their dice game has one of the highest HE out of all the dice sites
it is 5% and it is there to cover the faucet expenses
also they do not have advertisment as of lately as in banner or text ads
don't think you visted their site lately
in any case, 0% house edge is sustainable in some cases (PVP,for example) but I don't trust websites like that

[LuanX3]

there is still a chance these kinds of casinos can exist and make a profit.

I'm not denying that they can make a profit. Just that they are not profitable. There's a difference between winning at gambling and having a gambling game be winning for the player.

There is no argument to be had here since you're simply saying that casinos can get 'lucky' to deviate from the mean and make some profit. Again, begging the question.Human emotions/other factors don't change the outcome of the wager. If the edge is 0%, the ev for both the casino and player are 1.00. That's it.

It does change it. Theory is different from actual. Again, the equation does not factor in human emotions since it is an outside factor. In a perfect world, if the gambler and the casino play an infinite number of games without any other factor then yes both will get 1.00. But the fact is that you still have to factor in human greed and the limits. Well, I guess this is just going in circles and we both agree to disagree.

[actmyname]

It does change it. Theory is different from actual. Again, the equation does not factor in human emotions since it is an outside factor. In a perfect world, if the gambler and the casino play an infinite number of games without any other factor then yes both will get 1.00. But the fact is that you still have to factor in human greed and the limits. Well, I guess this is just going in circles and we both agree to disagree.

No, you are going in circles by begging the question and you do not understand the extent of my argument.

Greed does not matter. Individual profit does not matter. It is the total profit of all the players vs. the casino that does matter which is expected to be 0.

So a player gets greedy. There are two outcomes: they win the bet or they lose the bet. The expected profit is 0 from both sides. Thus, as a long-term investment, nothing happens and the casino wastes money from server hosting.

[adaseb]

It does change it. Theory is different from actual. Again, the equation does not factor in human emotions since it is an outside factor. In a perfect world, if the gambler and the casino play an infinite number of games without any other factor then yes both will get 1.00. But the fact is that you still have to factor in human greed and the limits. Well, I guess this is just going in circles and we both agree to disagree.

No, you are going in circles by begging the question and you do not understand the extent of my argument.

Greed does not matter. Individual profit does not matter. It is the total profit of all the players vs. the casino that does matter which is expected to be 0.

So a player gets greedy. There are two outcomes: they win the bet or they lose the bet. The expected profit is 0 from both sides. Thus, as a long-term investment, nothing happens and the casino wastes money from server hosting.

I get what you are saying however you are forgetting this.

If someone buys some scratch tickets and loses, they lost their money.
If someone buys some scratch tickets and wins, they buy more scratch tickets and lose their money anyways.

So fear and greed do play a type of roll.

With 0% house edge however can be overcome by greed and fear by just making an autobot which doesn't feel emotions .

[actmyname]

If someone buys some scratch tickets and loses, they lost their money. If someone buys some scratch tickets and wins, they buy more scratch tickets and lose their money anyways.

You are not taking the sample size of the entire field.

Let P(X) = probability of X result, E(X) = expected value, L = loss, W = win

You're outlining the following two cases: someone buys scratch tickets and loses, someone buys scratch tickets and wins (and then buys more scratch tickets).Thus, we have (assuming 50-50 with 0% house edge)
Case 1: P(L) = 0.5
Case 2: P(W->L) = 0.5

That's not the case.

In reality, there is an infinite number of cases from your proposal of "greed."

Case 1: P(W) = 0.5 (Player wins 1 unit)
Case 2: P(L) = 0.5 (Player loses 1 unit)
E(X) = 0

Case 1.1: P(WL) = 0.25 (Player wins 0 units)
Case 1.2: P(WW) = 0.25 (Player wins 1 unit)
Case 2.1: P(LW) = 0.25 (Player wins 0 units)
Case 2.2: P(LL) = 0.25 (Player loses 1 unit)
E(X) = 0

We can continue infinitely but when you look at it, no matter how many bets the player does (i.e. total amount wagered) there is an expected profit of 0.You keep assuming that the players lose. That's the problem in your argument. It's like trying to say that 1 = 2 by assuming that 1 = 2. That's begging the question.

[BTCevo]

We can even see negative house edge websites !
These are the faucet. I'm thinking in particular of http://www.freebitco.in

Their business model relies on advertising, so the games are just giving BTC away.
It's very hard to get some decent amount of money. You can win more on a dice site.

If some organization find a right balance between income, profits and expenses, we can have very interesting free games.

oh that is one bad example for a negative house edge
freebitcoin is a faucet+gambling site,their dice game has one of the highest HE out of all the dice sites
it is 5% and it is there to cover the faucet expenses
also they do not have advertisment as of lately as in banner or text ads
don't think you visted their site lately
in any case, 0% house edge is sustainable in some cases (PVP,for example) but I don't trust websites like that

Yes this is indeed true, I believe there are no site that offer this huge on their house edge. Only freebitco.in that can offer this huge and top of that, they also give very huge amount of lottery every single week so I think it is worth for them. I ever ask one dice admin why they can't provide such a huge lottery on their site and what do they say? If you want me to increase the house edge then I will give you even more lotttery prizes

And btw let me clear this thing, they purely do not get income from banners or any ads, only from their hi-lo games which is the highest among all

[LuanX3]

It does change it. Theory is different from actual. Again, the equation does not factor in human emotions since it is an outside factor. In a perfect world, if the gambler and the casino play an infinite number of games without any other factor then yes both will get 1.00. But the fact is that you still have to factor in human greed and the limits. Well, I guess this is just going in circles and we both agree to disagree.

No, you are going in circles by begging the question and you do not understand the extent of my argument.

Greed does not matter. Individual profit does not matter. It is the total profit of all the players vs. the casino that does matter which is expected to be 0.

So a player gets greedy. There are two outcomes: they win the bet or they lose the bet. The expected profit is 0 from both sides. Thus, as a long-term investment, nothing happens and the casino wastes money from server hosting.

And again, I go back to my argument that it still does not incorporate human emotions. Math is math, yes. In a perfect scenario the game will end in 0. But the thing is there are gamblers that can't stop playing even if they have won a lot already and think they can make more out of their winnings but end up losing in the end.

[actmyname]

But the thing is there are gamblers that can't stop playing even if they have won a lot already and think they can make more out of their winnings but end up losing in the end.

You are assuming that they are losing to prove that they lose.

Just because they are wagering does not mean that they are going to lose. Just because they are greedy and continue to bet does not mean that they will lose. And if you are considering only one player, then the variance is high and you will deviate from the mean of 0.

Basically, your argument boils down to this: human emotions cause greed, which means a higher wagered amount, resulting in the loss of money.

This may be true with games that have house edge, but it's not true in the case of zero-edge games. And not only that, but you are also assuming that the casino has enough bankroll to cover that of the player.

[michkima]

But the thing is there are gamblers that can't stop playing even if they have won a lot already and think they can make more out of their winnings but end up losing in the end.

You are assuming that they are losing to prove that they lose.

Just because they are wagering does not mean that they are going to lose. Just because they are greedy and continue to bet does not mean that they will lose. And if you are considering only one player, then the variance is high and you will deviate from the mean of 0.

Basically, your argument boils down to this: human emotions cause greed, which means a higher wagered amount, resulting in the loss of money.

This may be true with games that have house edge, but it's not true in the case of zero-edge games. And not only that, but you are also assuming that the casino has enough bankroll to cover that of the player.

From my cursory reading of your conversations, I would agree with actmyname. The fact is that indeed there are those that will get greedy but probably there would equally be those that win and takes home the money thus resulting to probably an equal gain and losses for the casino. Mathematically speaking, this is indeed a 0 end game since we are rolling an infinite number of games and this means that the closer we reach infinity the more likely the results will be 0 in this case. Hence, indeed a casino with 0% house edge is just wasting their time and server hosting.

[adaseb]

But the thing is there are gamblers that can't stop playing even if they have won a lot already and think they can make more out of their winnings but end up losing in the end.

You are assuming that they are losing to prove that they lose.

Just because they are wagering does not mean that they are going to lose. Just because they are greedy and continue to bet does not mean that they will lose. And if you are considering only one player, then the variance is high and you will deviate from the mean of 0.

Basically, your argument boils down to this: human emotions cause greed, which means a higher wagered amount, resulting in the loss of money.

This may be true with games that have house edge, but it's not true in the case of zero-edge games. And not only that, but you are also assuming that the casino has enough bankroll to cover that of the player.

From my cursory reading of your conversations, I would agree with actmyname. The fact is that indeed there are those that will get greedy but probably there would equally be those that win and takes home the money thus resulting to probably an equal gain and losses for the casino. Mathematically speaking, this is indeed a 0 end game since we are rolling an infinite number of games and this means that the closer we reach infinity the more likely the results will be 0 in this case. Hence, indeed a casino with 0% house edge is just wasting their time and server hosting.

Well consider a different and yet similiar scenario.

Consider the stock market or even the Bitcoin markets in the last 2 years.

We had crazy bull markets but yet people are complaining about not making any money.

The stock market has a house edge that's actually edged towards them since with inflation stocks usually increase in value.

Yet people still struggle and can't make any money.

[actmyname]

Well consider a different and yet similiar scenario.

Consider the stock market or even the Bitcoin markets in the last 2 years.

We had crazy bull markets but yet people are complaining about not making any money.

The stock market has a house edge that's actually edged towards them since with inflation stocks usually increase in value.

Yet people still struggle and can't make any money.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Stock market exchanges have fees, which mean the players are losing (together). If you disregard the fees, then it becomes a zero-sum game which would explain why people complain about not making money. At the root of it, this is just like playing poker.

But what does anything with an edge have to do with our argument about zero-edge games?

[iluvbitcoins]

But the thing is there are gamblers that can't stop playing even if they have won a lot already and think they can make more out of their winnings but end up losing in the end.

You are assuming that they are losing to prove that they lose.

Just because they are wagering does not mean that they are going to lose. Just because they are greedy and continue to bet does not mean that they will lose. And if you are considering only one player, then the variance is high and you will deviate from the mean of 0.

Basically, your argument boils down to this: human emotions cause greed, which means a higher wagered amount, resulting in the loss of money.

This may be true with games that have house edge, but it's not true in the case of zero-edge games. And not only that, but you are also assuming that the casino has enough bankroll to cover that of the player.

From my cursory reading of your conversations, I would agree with actmyname. The fact is that indeed there are those that will get greedy but probably there would equally be those that win and takes home the money thus resulting to probably an equal gain and losses for the casino. Mathematically speaking, this is indeed a 0 end game since we are rolling an infinite number of games and this means that the closer we reach infinity the more likely the results will be 0 in this case. Hence, indeed a casino with 0% house edge is just wasting their time and server hosting.

It's possible to obtain the hosting fees through donations from happy customers
Probably by displaying a messege asking for a donation to people that won significant amounts of money and placed a withdrawal.

[actmyname]

It's possible to obtain the hosting fees through donations from happy customers
Probably by displaying a messege asking for a donation to people that won significant amounts of money and placed a withdrawal.

Surviving off donations is not a good business idea. Maybe if you're trying to be non-profit like Wikipedia, but then you still have to have a large enough bankroll for a seemingly pointless investment. Would you seriously think about having millions of dollars in a casino where you don't even have any idea if you'll profit in the future?

[wxa7115]

Hey players,
I was looking for opportunity between casinos and found two crypto project which claim that have 0% fees on games, named zeroedge and edgeless. Do you have any experience with them? I asked in their telegram groups, how their concept works, they answered me that their concept is based on their own cryptocurrency, that will grow with number of players and also that not every game will be with 0% fees. I still don't know if it's enough, maybe blockchain will spare some money, on the other hand, they should have big reserve to be able to run. What do you think, will these project successful?

It is simply not possible to run a casino like that, remember everything you see at the casino from the webpage, to the servers, to the customer service and to the games themselves are not free for the owner of the casino and I'm pretty sure they are not making available all those games just to lose money, so when I see a casino claiming they don't have a house edge that makes me suspicious.

[MinerHQ]

But the thing is there are gamblers that can't stop playing even if they have won a lot already and think they can make more out of their winnings but end up losing in the end.

You are assuming that they are losing to prove that they lose.

Just because they are wagering does not mean that they are going to lose. Just because they are greedy and continue to bet does not mean that they will lose. And if you are considering only one player, then the variance is high and you will deviate from the mean of 0.

Basically, your argument boils down to this: human emotions cause greed, which means a higher wagered amount, resulting in the loss of money.

This may be true with games that have house edge, but it's not true in the case of zero-edge games. And not only that, but you are also assuming that the casino has enough bankroll to cover that of the player.

From my cursory reading of your conversations, I would agree with actmyname. The fact is that indeed there are those that will get greedy but probably there would equally be those that win and takes home the money thus resulting to probably an equal gain and losses for the casino. Mathematically speaking, this is indeed a 0 end game since we are rolling an infinite number of games and this means that the closer we reach infinity the more likely the results will be 0 in this case. Hence, indeed a casino with 0% house edge is just wasting their time and server hosting.

It's possible to obtain the hosting fees through donations from happy customers
Probably by displaying a messege asking for a donation to people that won significant amounts of money and placed a withdrawal.

What is the point of running a site and depends on donations to maintain a site? I don't know how many winners are ready to donate their money.

I don't think any normal business person does this mistake without keeping an option to bring some profits for them for the time and risk they take to run the site.